Texas immediately restores voter ID law after Supreme Court decision

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced Tuesday his state will re-establish its voter ID law after the Supreme Court struck down a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that required certain states to seek federal approval before changing the electoral process.

Congress must devise a new racial calculus to determine which counties and states must petition the federal government to change election laws, the majority announced.

Texas greeted the ruling with plans to implement its suspended voter ID laws and district maps.

âWith todayâs decision, the Stateâs voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government,â Abbottâs statement read.

In March 2012, the Department of Justice struck down the law, claiming it would disproportionally affect the stateâs growing Hispanic population. Gov. Rick Perry pushed back fiercely, calling the decision âpervasive federal overreach.â

âThe DOJ has no valid reason for rejecting this important law, which requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane,â the governor said in a statement.

Abbott praised the courtâs decision and the removal of the unequal application of federal laws.

âThe U.S. Constitution establishes one United States â not a divided nation with different laws applying to different states. Laws that apply unequally to just some states have no place in our nation,â his statement read. âTodayâs ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect.â

I don't have a strong opinion on this development (yet), but I find this illogical:

âThe U.S. Constitution establishes one United States â not a divided nation with different laws applying to different states. Laws that apply unequally to just some states have no place in our nation,â his statement read. âTodayâs ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect.â

I don't have a strong opinion on this development (yet), but I find this illogical:

âThe U.S. Constitution establishes one United States â not a divided nation with different laws applying to different states. Laws that apply unequally to just some states have no place in our nation,â his statement read. âTodayâs ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect.â

Of course you would find a decision affirming that the U.S. constitution protects states rights illogical.

This could be a big setback for leftists... Obama got that right today.

Maybe the pendulum will start swinging back to power for the people.

Quote from Ricter:

I don't have a strong opinion on this development (yet), but I find this illogical:

âThe U.S. Constitution establishes one United States â not a divided nation with different laws applying to different states. Laws that apply unequally to just some states have no place in our nation,â his statement read. âTodayâs ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect.â

I don't have a strong opinion on this development (yet), but I find this illogical:

âThe U.S. Constitution establishes one United States â not a divided nation with different laws applying to different states. Laws that apply unequally to just some states have no place in our nation,â his statement read. âTodayâs ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect.â

More...

You need to understand logic better or learn how to comprehend when you read.
__________________

The United States Constitution, in Article VI, section 3, states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The Constitution, however, leaves the determination of voting qualifications to the individual states.
[/b]The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution[/b] In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.

For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots

I don't have a strong opinion on this development (yet), but I find this illogical:

âThe U.S. Constitution establishes one United States â not a divided nation with different laws applying to different states. Laws that apply unequally to just some states have no place in our nation,â his statement read. âTodayâs ruling ensures that Texas is no longer one of just a few states that must seek approval from the federal government before its election laws can take effect.â

More...

Section 4 determines which states are covered by Section 5.

Texas got in trouble a few years back violating Section 5 of the VRA when a gerrymandering plan was declared discriminatory. Florida ran into problems by proposing to cut early voting.

There are more cases to try and prevent the nonwhite people to vote. I would expect the nonwhite voting areas to have shorter voting hours, understaffed voting officials and/or early voting eliminated altogether in the next general election.

The responses illustrate that the Party of the Stupid supporters on this site have very little to no knowledge of anything. One idiot in particular should have looked back at St. Reagan's amnesty plan and see that wages didn't rise for all immigrants.